Because there is a distinction with the "natural world" and the human world. The natural world is that which does its thing without human (beings who are self-aware and can reason) influence and conversely, doesn't directly influence humans. — schopenhauer1

There is a distinction between redheads and blondes. It doesn't imply we have a different ethical responsibility to each. Simply pointing to a difference in property isn't an argument for difference in ethical treatment.

there can be a case that, if humans have the time and resources, why not go above and beyond (supererogatory actions) and preserve that which might be saved? — schopenhauer1

Well, if you're asking me directly, my answer is because it would be ridiculous. Same answer as I'd give to most such ethical extremes. I think it's absurd to pluck an ethical principle out of our intertwined biological and cultural milieu and then, for no reason at all, follow it through to whatever ends, even the destruction of the very wellspring which birthed it. What would be the point?

There is a distinction between redheads and blondes. It doesn't imply we have a different ethical responsibility to each. Simply pointing to a difference in property isn't an argument for difference in ethical treatment. — Isaac

It is what those properties mean.. the semantics. Blondes and redheads is a distinction that makes no difference morally. Beings who can reason and beings who can not reason does make a difference when discussing how they interact. We have no obligation to save every animal on earth, nor every human. Humans CAN be considered more important than animals and it would STILL be correct to not cause them unnecessary suffering.

Well, if you're asking me directly, my answer is because it would be ridiculous. Same answer as I'd give to most such ethical extremes. I think it's absurd to pluck an ethical principle out of our intertwined biological and cultural milieu and then, for no reason at all, follow it through to whatever ends, even the destruction of the very wellspring which birthed it. What would be the point? — Isaac

Huh? I'm saying IFF you had the means to protect, why not?

Because were are not kings with dominion over the earth with all animals as our subjects for protection. That's an odd and antiquated way of looking at it. — schopenhauer1

In a perverse way we do have kingly dominion over the earth. Heard about global warming? Heard about chemical contamination? Heard about soil exhaustion? Heard about 8 billion humans? Heard about Silent Spring?

Because we had the capacity to change global climate and everything that depends on a stable climate AND because we used that capacity, we have become responsible.

Because there is a distinction with the "natural world" and the human world. The natural world is that which does its thing without human (beings who are self-aware and can reason) — schopenhauer1

I wish we could reason better, and act on the results.

I used to think that the human and natural worlds were discreet, separate; it does its thing, we do our thing, and the two do not communicate. Take the trillions of bacteria in your gut: They are not you and they are part o the "natural world". It turns out that the relationship between these many species and us is far more interrelated and intimate than we would like to think.

As a species, we are part of the natural world, sharing DNA with everything from bacteria on up. Why are fungal infections difficult to treat? Because fungi and animals have a bit too much biology in common. Drugs that kill fungi negatively affect animals too.

Without the rest of nature, we'd be dead--starved, suffocated, sickened by all sorts of attackers.

Bears in the northwest help forests grow. How? The catch a lot of salmon, take it into the woods, and eat it/digest it. The bears bring specific nutrients to the forest floor through their kind of messy eating habits. Wolves help forests grow too. They eat animals that chew on trees, like deer and moose (elk). Too few wolves, too many munchers. The forest starts shrinking. Adding wolves results in fewer trees killed; hence, a thicker forest. [This has been extensively demonstrated on Lake Superior's Isle Royale, a 200+ square mile island 18 miles off the shoreline of Minnesota.]

We introduced 'exotic' earthworms into various states around a century ago. They have been working their way northward. These are the big nightcrawlers that people use for fishing bait.). They are now chewing up the leaf-litter under northern hardwood forests. They digest the leaves, of course, and leave worm castings behind. That's fine. But without the leaf litter, the thin soil in northern forests erodes too fast, impoverishing the soils.

Everything we do, and everything that happens in the natural world, including the affairs of gazelles, eventually affects everything else.

Everything we do, and everything that happens in the natural world, including the affairs of gazelles, eventually affects everything else. — Bitter Crank

Granted, but I am saying humans are not obligated to them as they are directly to animals under their care. Is it a good idea to look after the natural environment? Absolutely.

I mean, there's people dying in Ukraine.. I can't really prevent it. But I would like it to stop. I don't have an obligation to do anything about it either, unless I had a clear way to stop it, and I unnecessarily let it prolong. There are levels of care based on proximity, relation, care, and capacity.

Beings who can reason and beings who can not reason does make a difference when discussing how they interact. — schopenhauer1

That's just a repeat of the assertion, not an explanation of it.

I'm saying IFF you had the means to protect, why not? — schopenhauer1

I can't improve on @Bitter Crank's answer. It would be outrageous hubris.

But I am saying humans have obligations to them, because their survival is largely in our hands.

But I am saying humans have obligations to them, because their survival is largely in our hands. — Bitter Crank

Perhaps you are right. That would still make @Isaac not right.

I can't improve on Bitter Crank's answer. It would be outrageous hubris. — Isaac

Cool, then he thus refuted your idea that we have no obligation to the natural world, cause that is what he is saying.

he thus refuted your idea that we have no obligation to the natural world — schopenhauer1

Where have I said any such thing?

Where have I said any such thing? — Isaac

You asked if we have obligation to save wild animals from natural disasters...@Bitter Crank seems to be implying we do. Ok.

You asked if we have obligation to save wild animals from natural disasters — schopenhauer1

That's a question, not a proposition.

Ok — schopenhauer1

So that's settled. Fill your bird feeder with big earthworms so the northern forest survives.

So that's settled. Fill your bird feeder with big earthworms so the northern forest survives. — Bitter Crank

Is it true though? Do you think that we have an obligation to save wild animals in a natural disaster? The same way as humans? Because that's what the argument was about.

That's a question, not a proposition. — Isaac

Do you think we have an obligation to protect other humans in a natural disaster?

I can't make sense of this expression. It sounds like you've already decided the argument is rational and defensible, but you want to find out why. That seems like an oddly dogmatic approach. — Isaac

I just mean that I am interested in hearing both critical and non-critical points raised.

The answer is "no, with caveats". It's not a question that can be answered with a simple yes or no. There are caveats where we use other humans to our own ends, there are caveats where we kill other humans to our own ends. That is the conclusion of the examples I gave. It's the reason I gave them. — Isaac

So your answer is no. It's that simple. Digging around trying to find the possible reasons why human rights don't always carry through isn't a good faith strategy. The question is "Do you think it ethical to own human beings, breed them for your own ends, and kill them when you wish to further those ends?" Your answer is no. Don't fiddle around trying to pretend that you could potentially find a good reason for the answer to be yes. Gee, here you are so keen to counter my proposition that you want to start dismantling human rights.

I mean this is patently false. Again the reason why I provided the example I did. If other humans were suffering as a result of frequent animal attacks, or frequent earthquakes, or volcanoes... We don't wash our hands of the humanitarian issues because they were not caused by other humans. We have barriers in place to prevent such tragedies because we care about the humans who would otherwise suffer. So if our ethical concerns extend without caveat, to other animals, then why do we not similarly protect prey from the suffering at the hands of their predators. A lion is no less a natural occurrence than an earthquake. We evacuate people from the vicinity of the latter, ought we evacuate prey from the vicinity of the former? — Isaac

This is just poor reasoning. We don't save people from natural disasters simply because human rights mean we should. This is for several reasons, including from simple sentimentality, to being good members of the human community, to having regard to our duties as rights bearers. Once again, what happens outside of direct human relations with other species is not relevant to the proposition. If you want to make it such that it should, only to reject it, feel free to go right ahead. It's an irrelevant distraction.

Is it true though? Do you think that we have an obligation to save wild animals in a natural disaster? The same way as humans? Because that's what the argument was about. — schopenhauer1

I don't think this issue is relevant to my post. My interest is in regard to our duties in the context of our direct relations with other species, that is, when we do things that affect them directly. Whether we also have a moral obligation to wild animals beyond that would be a different question.

On the face of it, we probably do at some level because we do see some efforts to assist (look at YT videos of people freeing trapped animals). However, I think here we are straying into territory related to the ability to be reasoning, good faith members of a moral community. When we seek to save humans from natural disasters, we typically do so in the expectation that the victims will likely work with us on this. Wild animals will not. I think it would be different if every human we tried to save from disaster did their best to resist us, hurt us and even kill us. We'd be far less disposed to act this way.

Do you think that we have an obligation to save wild animals in a natural disaster? — schopenhauer1

There are some considerations to be made.

a) is it possible to save x wild animals?
b) if saved, will there be habitat for them
c) humans come first; if the choice is between saving an eagle or antelope vs. saving a human, save the human first. Then if it's possible, address the animals' survival.

If one saves a bear by giving it water during a severe drought, then what? Are we going to care for the bear indefinitely? If one feeds animals during their hard times, they will generally stick around. They may not practice higher reasoning, but they will figure out where the best deal is -- starve in the woods or survive by eating what we give them. Bears and people in close proximity usually doesn't end well.

]Some people feed deer in Minnesota; even if they are not starving, People like to watch the deer and they like our food. The are particularly fond of flowers like impatiens and begonias (definitely NOT native plants) and everything in the garden. Ordinary field corn just isn't that interesting in comparison, it seems. And some people feed deer during starvations times--cattle feed, basically.

There are groups who take care of raptors that are injured, and then release them back into their habitat. What if the habitat is gone? Eagles are not vegetarians; will there be enough live game for them to eat and raise chicks? They need animals larger than mice -- like rabbits, large fish, etc.

Gee, here you are so keen to counter my proposition that you want to start dismantling human rights. — Graeme M

Good faith debating isn't necessarily in Isaac's toolbox. It's funny, I've had a back-and-forth with him several times and I've also used the term "not in good faith" towards his style, so there may be a pattern here...

I don't think this issue is relevant to my post. — Graeme M

I didn't pose it. Isaac-dude did.

Wild animals will not. I think it would be different if every human we tried to save from disaster did their best to resist us, hurt us and even kill us. We'd be far less disposed to act this way. — Graeme M

Interesting take.

a) is it possible to save x wild animals?
b) if saved, will there be habitat for them
c) humans come first; if the choice is between saving an eagle or antelope vs. saving a human, save the human first. Then if it's possible, address the animals' survival. — Bitter Crank

Yep, I'd agree. That would be a good answer for @Isaac's red herring.

He was trying to make an argument whereby "If schop1 can't be bothered to save wild animals in a disaster, he therefore shouldn't worry about eating animals". My point was, the most basic obligation is to not cause unnecessary harm as a basis for morals in general. I stated earlier:

Animals need not be treated EQUALLY to humans, when it comes to moral reasoning. It simply stands that we have an obligation towards them, as sentient beings, to not cause unnecessarily harmful behavior towards them. And that is the key part. — schopenhauer1

As well as...

Humans CAN be considered more important than animals and it would STILL be correct to not cause them unnecessary suffering. — schopenhauer1

But for positive moral motivations, you have to consider things..

There are levels of care based on proximity, relation, care, and capacity. — schopenhauer1

That is basically what you are getting at...
Proximity: I can't necessarily save someone not in my vacinity.
Relation: I will care more about people closer to me than who are not. To NOT consider this would be a violation of sorts. A mother, father, friend, neighbor.. etc. Not recognizing relations in values is borderline sociopathic.
Care: Are there people who are directly under your care that could not use their own agency? These might be the people to consider most as they can't do anything whatsoever (babies, elderly, your own pets, etc.)
Capacity: Do you have any means of actually helping? Whom and how much money shall you give if at all without going poor yourself? How are you to stop a war you have no way of stopping across the world?

That is to say all of the above is for positive factors of helping.. The basic moral stance I would argue is more basic than that. It is simply refraining from causing unnecessary suffering, which in a way is a negative stance, of not violating (rather than going out of your to help or other "positive" act).

Good faith debating isn't necessarily in Isaac's toolbox. It's funny, I've had a back-and-forth with him several times and I've also used the term "not in good faith" towards his style, so there may be a pattern here. — schopenhauer1

Yes, I think he has taken an unnecessarily adversarial tack. The trouble with that as I see it is that you no longer end up debating an issue but simply responding to an endless series of slight variations on a theme.

Yes, I think he has taken an unnecessarily adversarial tack. The trouble with that as I see it is that you no longer end up debating an issue but simply responding to an endless series of slight variations on a theme. — Graeme M

Yeah that happens with him, unfortunately.

proximity, relation, care, and capacity — schopenhauer1

clarifies the matter.

I have a family member who's a fruitarian (subsists, at least tries to, only on fruits) and no she didn't know that's the most ethical diet ever. Why? Fruits are meant to be eaten - their sweetness is a reward for aiding the plant in seed dispersal - and so there really is no sin involved in consuming fruit. We should all adopt fruitarianism - its healthy too say nutritionists.

Me two cents ...

Do you think we have an obligation to protect other humans in a natural disaster? — schopenhauer1

Of course.

I just mean that I am interested in hearing both critical and non-critical points raised. — Graeme M

I'm not preventing anyone from posting noncritical content. I'm not going to make up some placatory praise just to stroke your ego.

So your answer is no. It's that simple. — Graeme M

If you're going to ignore my actual answer and replace it with the one you'd prefer to respond to, then the question wasn't asked in good faith. So why don't we start with what you really meant by asking it.

The question is "Do you think it ethical to own human beings, breed them for your own ends, and kill them when you wish to further those ends?" Your answer is no. — Graeme M

No. Don't tell me what my answer is. My answer is sometimes yes, sometimes no depending on the circumstances. It's not my problem that you're too dogmatic to accept a nuanced answer.

We don't save people from natural disasters simply because human rights mean we should. — Graeme M

Human rights are currently limited to the treatment of humans by other humans.

You are arguing that we ought extend them to the treatment of animals by humans.

The point I'm making by bringing in natural disasters and natural predation is that you've provided no argument for why (if we're going to extend the scope of human rights) we should not extend them to the treatment of humans by natural forces or the treatment of animals by other animals.

It's you who are equating human rights with our ethical sensibilities. The argument is that if human rights do not apply to natural disasters (yet our ethical sensibilities clearly do) then human rights are clearly bounded by factors other than our mere sensibilities.

No. Don't tell me what my answer is. My answer is sometimes yes, sometimes no depending on the circumstances. It's not my problem that you're too dogmatic to accept a nuanced answer. — Isaac

You cannot be ambivalent about this, it's a yes or no answer. I didn't ask you if it's OK to kill someone in certain circumstances. I very clearly asked you whether or not you believe it is ethical to own human beings AND to breed them for your own ends AND to kill them when you wish as part of meeting those ends. You either do or you dont. This is your problem - you prefer to answer questions according to your own restatement of them to suit your purposes then pretend you have actually made some insightful point. You haven't.

The point I'm making by bringing in natural disasters and natural predation is that you've provided no argument for why (if we're going to extend the scope of human rights) we should not extend them to the treatment of humans by natural forces or the treatment of animals by other animals. — Isaac

Because this is not relevant to human rights as we understand them. Nowhere did I suggest extending human rights, I specifically noted that just three rights as described in the UNDHR are relevant and I quite specifically did not suggest we extend those rights to other species. Again, you are just nitpicking with made up versions of what I have said.

So, it's clear there is nothing to gain from talking with you further. Thanks for your input.

I have a family member who's a fruitarian (subsists, at least tries to, only on fruits) and no she didn't know that's the most ethical diet ever. Why? Fruits are meant to be eaten - their sweetness is a reward for aiding the plant in seed dispersal - and so there really is no sin involved in consuming fruit. We should all adopt fruitarianism - its healthy too say nutritionists. — Agent Smith

That's an interesting angle. I am no nutritionist but I don't think that a fruitarian diet is likely to be regarded as a nutritionally adequate or healthy diet.